Maybe they're homeopathic Romans.
Or more likely is that my simple mathematical thought model breaks down with real world genetics. Any geneticists in the house?
The harm is that the origin story might well not be true, so why declare it's true? It's like saying Sinterklaas exists.. ehm, well no harm there I think as he does in a way.
I guess it keeps me on my toes, so that's good I suppose. It's just a little annoying that people do this kind of thing. Personally I think that simple recounting of the facts of history is entertaining enough. Why are people trying to embellish it?
People make up history for a few reasons:
- So that they can cite it as precedent in an argument.
All three are incredibly common. This looks like #1; Rome is not particularly prestigious in China.
To be fair, this "recent pattern" is documented everywhere as far back as writing exists.
To be fair, on the timescale of anatomically modern humans, writing is a recent development, so “recent pattern” for something that is evidently as old as writing can be true, if you have the right perspective.
(On the other hand, the absence of pre-writing evidence is not evidence of pre-writing absence.)
Heck, I'm willing to state with confidence that the oral histories of preliterate peoples were not accurate and nearly always contained invented, fantastical elements.
People want to believe it; it's an interesting theory. However, the genetic diversity in this region comes primarily from Yugurs (a Turkic group related to the Uyghurs which converted to Tibetan Buddhism around a thousand years ago) and Mongolians.
Actually when you prod and poke at these myths, inevitably some damn fine archaeology or science or something else that is real and tangible falls out in some way, or some absolutely beautiful scenery is involved. I have a lot of examples and not enough room in this comment to encompass them all.